Dismissed

The Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy v. P H Kurian I a S, the Principal Secretary to Government

Kerala HC27 Jan 2016Con.Case(C)/142/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt application alleging violation of High Court directions regarding permit renewals. The court observed that the underlying matter was before the Supreme Court, which had recorded a submission for permit renewal pending orders. Relying on this development, the court held that no case of willful contempt was made out and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case closed on the ground that no case of willful contempt was made out.

The Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy Vs… — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/7TH MAGHA, 1937

¶7

Con.Case(C).No. 142 of 2016 (S) IN WP(C).10694/2015

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10694/2015 DATED 30-09-2015

¶9

PETITIONERS/IN WPC :

¶10

THE PARISTHITHY SAMRAKSHANA JANAKEEYA SAMITHY AGED 70 YEARS REGISTRATION NO.ER 527/03, KARUKUTTY.P.O. MAMBRA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 576 REPRESENTD.BY ITS PATRON P.P.PHILIP

¶11

K.J.JOSHY, S/O. K.I. JOSE, KALAMPARAMBAN HOUSE, KARUKUTTY.P.O. MAMBRA, ERNAKULAM DISTICT, PIN - 683 576.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1,3,4,5,11,14 & 17 IN WPC :

¶14

P H KURIAN I A S, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHPURAM-695 001

¶15

M.G. RAJAMANICKAM IAS AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 011

¶17

K. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 576

¶19

M.S. RAJKUMAR AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS

¶20

THE GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY

¶21

CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DIST. 682 030

¶22

Con.Case(C).No. 142 of 2016 (S) IN WP(C).10694/2015

¶23

T.K. THOMAS AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS

¶24

THANDAPPILLY HOUSE, KARUKUTTY PO, ERNAKULAM DIST. 683 576

¶25

K.M. JOY AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS

¶26

KACHAPPILLY HOUSE, PULIYANAM PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 576

¶27

K.D. MARTIN AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS KACHAPPILLY HOUSE, PULIYANAM PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 576

¶28

R1 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.I. DAVIS R5 & R7 BY SRI.V.P.REGHURAJ R6 BY SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI

¶29

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

Con.Case(C).No. 142 of 2016 (S) IN WP(C).10694/2015

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶33

ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2015 IN W.P.(C) No.10694/2015(S) ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶34

ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT FOUR PAGES OF THE MEMORANDUM IN SLP No.30103/15, SERVED ON THE 2ND PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶35

ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, DTD 30.10.2015, IN SLP No.30103/15.

¶36

ANNEXURE D : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2015 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.

¶37

ANNEXURE E : TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 17.11.2015, ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶38

ANNEXURE F : TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 17.11.2015, ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶39

ANNEXURE G : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 08.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶40

ANNEXURE H : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 08.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶41

ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 08.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

¶42

ANNEXURE J : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.01.2016, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS, BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶43

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶48

¶49

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 142 OF 2016

¶50

- - - - Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2016

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

Shaffique, J.

¶53

This contempt application has been filed alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court as per judgment in W.P.(C) No.10694 of 2015.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶55

that despite the directions issued by this Court, by violating such directions, permits have been issued by the respondent authorities as evidenced from Annexure G, H & I.

¶56

It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the petitioners came to be challenged before the Supreme Court. The matter has been seized by the Supreme Court, notice has been issued and Supreme Court had directed to maintain status quo as per order dated 30.10.2015. The Supreme Court has thereafter issued order dated 07.12.2015 which reads as under:

¶57

“Heard.

¶58

Mr.Ramesh Babu M.R., learned counsel appearing for

¶59

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 142 of 2016

¶60

-:2:-

¶61

respondents No.1 to 4, accepts notice in SLP(C) No.33130 of 2015. He prays for and is granted six weeks to file a counter affidavit. Fresh notice shall issue for the service of the unserved respondents. Post along with SLP(C) No.30103 of 2015 and connected matters.

¶62

Status quo shall be maintained by the parties as it exists today in SLP(C) No(s) 33130 of 2015 and 32072 of 2015.

¶63

At this stage, Mr.Ramesh Babu submits on instructions that the State of Kerala shall, pending further orders from this Court, renew all existing permits for a further period of one year and the status quo order shall not be interpreted to mean that the same is an impediment for such renewal. That submission is recorded.”

¶64

Having regard to the fact that the Supreme Court is seized of the matter and the submission of learned counsel that pending further orders, the Government has decided to renew all existing permits for a period of one year and that statement has been recorded by the Supreme Court, we do not think that there is any necessity to initiate contempt proceedings at this stage of proceedings.

¶65

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 142 of 2016

¶66

Under such circumstances, we do not think that as on date no case of any willful contempt has been made out. Accordingly, we close this Contempt Case.

¶67

Ashok Bhushan, Chief Justice.

¶68

A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

¶69

ttb/28/01

The Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy v. P H Kurian I a S, the Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy v. P H Kurian I a S, the Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sidheequel Akbar Vs the District Collector

A.Shanmughan Vs Vandazhy Grama Panchayat

C.v.Anilkumar Vs the Principal Secretary, Sc-St Development Department

Valsamma Alex Vs K.M.Lillykutty

T.K.Rajan Vs Union of India

Lipin Das Vs the Station House Officer